Official Report 363KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is to do with cross-party groups. We have two papers: one dealing with new applications and one dealing with re-registrations. We will deal first with the re-registration of cross-party groups, which is detailed in paper SPPA/S4/11/3/2. A number of cross-party groups are seeking re-registration. We have new purposes for some of them, and we also need to consider those that did not make the 90-day deadline. Are members happy with the recommendations in the paper and for the re-registration of the following groups: architecture and the built environment, construction, dyslexia, Gaelic, ME and Palestine? Do members have any questions in relation to those?
There are no questions, convener.
Okay. The 90-day re-registration period has given rise to some problems as it has run through the summer recess. I wonder whether we might agree to look at that in the future. We might get a report from the clerks in due course and consider whether that is the best way in which to deal with re-registration, given that it seems to cause some groups a problem. Is that agreed?
Paragraph 10 on page 2 of the paper deals with interpretation of the “Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament” in the context of the cross-party group on Palestine. Due to its purpose, that group has historically had difficulty in securing a Conservative MSP and, in previous sessions, was granted a waiver to the rule that a cross-party group must have one. Is the committee content to grant the CPG on Palestine a similar waiver this time round?
There is also an issue to do with the cross-party group on renewable energy and energy efficiency. In annex B, you will see that it has a list of members that runs to several pages—I have not counted them, but it looks as though there are hundreds of members. I wonder what would happen if they all attended—they would obviously not get in. What does the committee feel about a CPG having that number of members? Is it compliant with the criterion about a group being parliamentary in character?
I have no problem with the number of members in the group. The Parliament has always tried to engage with the wider public and, indeed, committees such as the Public Petitions Committee have worked really hard on going out into communities and on getting communities to come in. We have had a huge number of complaints that we are not getting enough people into the Parliament to engage with issues.
Helen Eadie makes an important point about being inclusive and drawing people into the Parliament. As far as the membership list is concerned, it is not that we are saying that none of these people can be members, but I wonder whether there might be a sharper or smarter way of presenting the list. For example, a number of people from one organisation are listed individually. The issue might simply be the layout of the list, so perhaps we should go back to those involved and ask them to consolidate it into membership organisations and individual members. We could also point out that for the group to be parliamentary in nature there has to be a manageable number of members at any given time to allow interaction between MSPs and the group’s wider membership. I do not want to exclude anyone but, as I said, I wonder whether the membership list could be sharper and more focused.
Bob Doris has said much of what I wanted to say. We should say to the group that although we all support its aims and purpose, there is an issue about how it will manage meetings with a membership of that size if all of them—or half or even a quarter of them—were to turn up. Like Helen Eadie, I think that we want as many members as possible to join, but there are perhaps just too many on that list.
If, after the list is consolidated, an exceptional number of members remain on it, could we say that only 50 members are allowed at a meeting at any one time?
This is difficult, because the particular issue of a group being parliamentary in character has never been defined. Of course—putting aside pure numbers—what is as important as anything else is the issue that the group is dealing with. Given that we all seem to agree that we have no problems with the group’s aims and so on, perhaps we should simply ask it to have a wee think about its list.
Having had hands-on involvement in organising meetings in the past, I should perhaps tell members about the online meeting room manager, in which each room in the Parliament has a specific number and the manager tells you how many people the room can accommodate. If they know that they are going to be in a certain room, most organisers will put a note on their invitations, saying that the room in question can hold only 98 people and that only the first 98 people who put their names forward can come. It is what might be described as a self-regulating mechanism; if organisers know that more people are going to come along, they have to look elsewhere.
Are we happy to approve the group as a cross-party group and, given the comments, to ask it to have a wee think about its membership? Perhaps the clerks can highlight that when they write back to the group.
We also have to approve four groups that have missed the 90-day re-registration deadline. I have already raised the issue and noted that a report on the matter will come back to the committee for discussion. However, the cross-party groups on construction, on deafness, on life sciences and on recreational boating and marine tourism have fallen into this category. Are members happy to approve those groups, with the proviso that they be reminded through the clerks of the requirements of complying with the code of conduct? We can deal with the general point in the future.
I am happy to approve it because the group met by the deadline; it was the paperwork it did not deal with.
Do we agree to approve that group?
That deals with the re-registration issues.
We will move onto agenda item 3, which is on cross-party group applications, the first of which is for the cross-party group on Poland, which was accorded recognition in the previous session of Parliament but did not re-register prior to the recess. We are required to consider whether to recognise the group formally again. The papers that are before the committee set out that the criteria for registration have been met and that there has been no change in its purpose. Do members have questions?
I am happy to approve the group. The application seems to be in order.
Do we agree to approve the cross-party group on Poland?
The second group is on social enterprise, as detailed on page 2 of the papers. It will be an entirely new group that was not previously accorded recognition. The application papers indicate that the group meets the requirements. Are members happy to approve the cross-party group on social enterprise?
I am happy to agree and also to the general waiver of the rule in respect of a Liberal Democrat member in paragraph 13. I know that they are under pressure.
Yes—that is already agreed. Are members happy to approve the cross-party group?